We had two different incidences of this in two different games, but they followed the same mode:

**************************

B1 is nearly 30 to 35 yards behind the play as A1 has made a breakaway run downfield. A2 has stopped running and is now walking upfield with his back turned to his goal line. B1 comes from behind and lays A2 out with a hit to the back.

Game 1: B1 is hitting with excessive force with, in my opinion, the intent to injure A2. I throw a flag and recommend Unnecessary Roughness (UNR), but WH decides to go with Illegal Block in the Back (IBB).

Game 2: B1 hits A2 with enough force to knock A2 to the ground but, in my opinion, was not done with intent to injure rather to let A2 know that he is still in play. I throw a flag for IBB and my WH seconds it.

************************

In game one, the coach doesn't think twice about the call being IBB and the game continues. I still felt it should be UNR, but relent to my WH's decision.

In game two, the coach cries foul and insists that there is no such thing as a blocking in the back penalty against the defense. There is defensive IBB, per Rule 2-5-2.

************************

This is a two-part question on my behalf.
1) As described, should the first one be UNR? What would you figure if you deemed the hit to be malicious?

2) What would people think of changing the verbage of IBB for defensive purposes to "Illegal Contact" instead of "Illegal Block" so it is potentially less confusing?

Canadian Ruling
 

Unnecessary Roughness (15+1D), at minimum, in both cases. In teh first, it is a candidate for Rough Play (25+1D+DQ).

Easy call to make.

I would call these Personal Fouls (according to the rule book) or you could call it Unsportsmanlike Conduct, you do not want these plays to happen again, this is a safety issue, thats what we are there for. If its severe enough, eject the player. What's an unnecessary roughness penalty, I can't find it? (NFL-quit watching Sunday ball it gets us into trouble!)

N. Pole Start with 9.4.2g.
Now, since this is a contact foul by the rules you can't rule it to be a USL foul. It is a personal foul and the basic spot is the spot of he foul.

In Fed these are both personal fouls because A2 is obviously out of the play (ejection for B1 if deemed flagrant as he hits a player who's walking away from the play with a blindsider in the back) and if A1 scores would be enforced on the try (8-2-2).

[Edited by kdf5 on Sep 27th, 2004 at 03:35 PM]

You can have IBB on the defense, BTW. If an A reciever has his back to the line of scrimmage while still behind it, and he is hit in the back by a defender before the pass gets to him, it is an IBB by the defense.

If the defender were to block him from the front and above the waist, legal. If he tackles him, holding.

Also, hitting an opponent so far from the play is hardly ever an accident, especiall when done by the defense. Unnecessary roughness, DQ if flagrant.

REPLY: I agree that both of these should be called personal fouls (for unnecessary roughness). See NF 9-4-2g (or NCAA 9-1-2j). You might also want to consider the possibility of ejection for a <u>flagrant</u> personal foul. Neither of these acts can be ruled Unsportsmanlike Conduct, despite the fact that each foul has an unsportsmanlike "character" to it. USC is non-contact in nature. It's related to behavior and conduct, not contact. IMHO, to "dilute" this contact to IBB is asking for further trouble and escalation of this type of contact.

Disagree
 

I totally disagree that unsportsmanlike acts cannot involve contact. If I see a person hit someone that is not involved with a play because the ball is downfield and it happens once I will tell them that the next one will be unsportmanlike and I will eject them. Taking cheapshots at unsuspecting players is about as dangerous and unsporting as it gets and I will not hesitate to give them opportunity to sit and think about their actions.

Re: Disagree
 

UC fouls are non contact by definition. 2 UC's call for automatic DQ. Just because an action is not "sportsmanlike" it doesn't make it an unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

Re: Re: Disagree
 

Exactly right.

And to add to this....
Nothing forbids us from warning the offender after penalizing them for the first personal foul. If a player continues to demonstrate rough behaviour after the warning, I am considering it flagrant in nature and ejecting him.

Last year, I ejected a kid after he was penalized for two personal fouls. After the first one, I spoke with the player himself, the coach, and the captains in an effort to get him under control. To start the second half, he did exactly the same thing that earned him the first personal foul and he earned himself an ejection.

Re: Disagree
 

You can disagree but to be blunt, you are wrong.

Re: Disagree
 

REPLY: You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but it needs to be addressed to both the NCAA and the National Federation and not the members of this discussion board. Both are on record (I quoted the rules above) saying that such actions are personal fouls. As for your final point, you can always rule it a flagrant personal foul and invite the offender to have a seat.

to stir the pot a little more
 

How can a cheap shot to the back not be flagrant? If B55 hits A71 who is obviously out of the play, i.e. walking down field behind the ball, how is this not flagrant?

If you have two guys run into each other and they go down, no foul, they are both engaged in the game - this may warrant a 'knock it off'.

Re: to stir the pot a little more
 

I agree that it is "flagrant" but I think I would have a problem ejecting someone for this, I'd have to see the shot though.

Thanks
 

And from now on I will call them very "unsportsmanlike," flagrant personal fouls! You are correct and thanks for the clarification.